^At the risk of being pedantic, ok I am being pedantic. its you cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Light kind of goes slower in materials and these photos showing a blue glow round reactor fuel rods, that blue light is essentially a sonic boom caused by particles going though the water faster than the speed of light in water, but still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Then we have the experiment in CERN where they are finding that neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum and arriving 60ns too early, or to put it another way they are traveling an extra 60ft on a 400km journey, so its a very small effect and error in the experiment rather than new science.

I believe you've just solved that puzzle - probably a conversion error.

Also..... Imagine you had a steel bar (or something equally rigid), 1km long and you 'push' one end of it. How much delay is there before something at the other end 'feels' that push? Instantly? So how did that 'push' travel 1km faster than light?

You, sir, are a God among men....
Short Men, who aren't terribly bright....
More like dwarves with learning disabilities....
You are a God among Dwarves With Learning Disabilities.

^At the risk of being pedantic, ok I am being pedantic. its you cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Light kind of goes slower in materials and these photos showing a blue glow round reactor fuel rods, that blue light is essentially a sonic boom caused by particles going though the water faster than the speed of light in water, but still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Then we have the experiment in CERN where they are finding that neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum and arriving 60ns too early, or to put it another way they are traveling an extra 60ft on a 400km journey, so its a very small effect and error in the experiment rather than new science.

Not what further tests have suggested...

You are offering your opinion, which to my mind is based on your ideas of the limitations of science.

What I'm saying, and I suggested it is supported by history, is that there are no limitations , per se, to science; science is our minds, and our minds are always evolving and creating.

Then we have the experiment in CERN where they are finding that neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum and arriving 60ns too early, or to put it another way they are traveling an extra 60ft on a 400km journey, so its a very small effect and error in the experiment rather than new science.

Very interesting and exciting experiment. And it seems it has been confirmed by a US experiment. Actually that US experiment showed the same earlier. But it was at the time not precise enough and the effect was within the margin of error and therefore discarded. After the CERN experiment the US experiment was repeated with care to reduce that margin of error and confirmed the CERN findings.
I still believe at the present time that there is something wrong with the assumptions in that experiment and it will prove wrong in the future but we will see.
There is one thing that makes me sceptical of the proof in comparing those two experiments. The distance between source and target is accidentally the same in both. So the measured difference is the same as well.

I would very much like to see the results of a similar experiment in Japan. The distance there is different than in Europe and the US. I want to see how big the difference measured will be there when the experiment is repeated. Unfortunately the Japan experiment is still down after the earthquake so we will have to wait. If the measured difference varies with the distance the effect is most likely real and very seriously needs explaining. If it is the same there is probably something wrong with the test.

BTW it does not matter that the difference is extremely small. Any difference will bring the present theory crashing down unless some explanation will be found that fits it back into the theory.

Originally Posted by Gerbil

Also..... Imagine you had a steel bar (or something equally rigid), 1km long and you 'push' one end of it. How much delay is there before something at the other end 'feels' that push? Instantly? So how did that 'push' travel 1km faster than light?

That push will travel probably with the speed of sound only. You compress that bar first. Nothing will even remotely approach the speed of light there.

^At the risk of being pedantic, ok I am being pedantic. its you cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Light kind of goes slower in materials and these photos showing a blue glow round reactor fuel rods, that blue light is essentially a sonic boom caused by particles going though the water faster than the speed of light in water, but still slower than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Then we have the experiment in CERN where they are finding that neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum and arriving 60ns too early, or to put it another way they are traveling an extra 60ft on a 400km journey, so its a very small effect and error in the experiment rather than new science.

Not what further tests have suggested...

You are offering your opinion, which to my mind is based on your ideas of the limitations of science.

What I'm saying, and I suggested it is supported by history, is that there are no limitations , per se, to science; science is our minds, and our minds are always evolving and creating.

Not so much historical evidence, more a body of experimental and theoretical evidence which which has consistently confirmed that the speed of light in a vacuum cannot be exceeded. One experiment means little under these circumstances, but its an issue that needs to be put to bed. so whats needed is a second experiment, which the americans are doing and a explanation for why this observation is being seen.... which they are still working on.

Another group at the same site have said that their experiment proved that these faster than light neutrinos cannot be travelling faster than the speed of light, because they are arriving with too much energy for that to be the case. But then their statement depends upon our understanding of the science being correct and that is only true if the observed speed of the neutrinos is wrong.. so thats not much of an assurance.

I intended but didn't write "so its a very small effect andalmost certainly an error in the experiment rather than new science" But yes, that is a speculative opinion.

Also..... Imagine you had a steel bar (or something equally rigid), 1km long and you 'push' one end of it. How much delay is there before something at the other end 'feels' that push? Instantly? So how did that 'push' travel 1km faster than light?

If you forget about size and go small. you get a lot of weidness in the QM world. Here wave functions, essentially mathematics which describes the properties of matter, these change instantaneously. which leads to the question:

if you have two particles whose wavefuntions are mixed, if you change some aspect of particle one, you also make a change to the properties of the second. Do these changes occur instantaneously or at the speed of light?

you have a physically large object which exhibits quantum energy levels. you pump in energy at one side of the object and make it jump to a new energy level. At another point you have a sensor to detect the energy level of the object will you see any delays in the engery level jumping?

On the other side ENT is proposing to use electricity from a battery to produce H2 and then burn that H2 in a car engine. That process has an overall efficiency of 20-25% at best opposed to feeding the electricity into an electric motor to run the car which has an efficiency of close to 100%.

And he insists on his wrong belief that the produced H2 contains more energy than the electricity put in.

You, in fact, insist in attempting to distort my statements on the subject! vis."..he insists...wrong belief that the produced H2 contains more energy than the electricity put in."

Your misleading statement in your above quote regarding the efficiency of the process is totally ridiculous.

12v at 5amps, used in the hydrolysis of water, converts the water into sufficient
hydrogen and oxygen to recombine by combustion, in the motor, to effectively reduce its fuel consumption by 33% aprox.
That simple process is demonstrated in the videos.

The car battery is continuously charged as the motor is running.

If the 12v car battery were used to attempt to run the car using an electric motor at 35 amps, the result would be a flat battery after a frustrating crawl of a few dozen metres.

As I said, too much. Unless you see it as an experiment and don't expect anything but some fun in return. I have no idea though if it can damage your engine. Probably not but don't take my word for it.

As I said, too much. Unless you see it as an experiment and don't expect anything but some fun in return. I have no idea though if it can damage your engine. Probably not but don't take my word for it.

Have fun.

With todays vehicles the pcm, knock sensors and timing can compensate for pre-detenation and if your really worried I can slam a rev limiter in there

In diesel you can fog/inject N2O, propane, water and alcohol. I do not see an issue with hydrogen as long it is metered correctly. But as with any of these there will be a sacrifice over time and it is usually the rings or valves and seats.

I have fitted the home made $10 unit to two petrol driven cars and driven them.
I have driven a petrol/lpg /HHO hybrid, fitted with a Thai factory made HHO unit a diesel SUV with a Thai factory made HHO unit in it,
and a diesel truck with a home made HHO unit fitted.

All vehicles gave a smoother and cleaner burn and take off from standing, with no loss of power.
All the vehicles ran on 30% less fuel.
No knock or pinking at all.
The Thai factory made units had in line backflash/spark arrestors.
The other units had a home made T-junction pressure regulator and bubbler spark arrestor.

Do you have the ability to scan your vehicle? I would like to watch the engine management during acceleration and de-accel. Also need to watch EOT and temp and monitor bank 1&2 cats upstream and down stream.

One other thing I would like to watch would be the exhaust temps buy we would need a pyrometer.